Germ cells of the mammalian female: A limited or renewable resource?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many non-mammalian organisms, a population of germ-line stem cells supports continuing production of gametes during post-natal life, and germ-line stem cells are also present and functional in male mammals. Traditionally, however, they have been thought not to exist in female mammals, who instead generate all their germ cells during fetal life. Over the last several years, this dogma has been challenged by several reports, while being supported by others. We describe and compare these conflicting studies with the aim of understanding how they came to opposing conclusions. We first consider studies that, by examining marker-gene expression, the fate of genetically marked cells, and consequences of depleting the oocyte population, addressed whether ovaries of post-natal females contain oogonial stem cells that give rise to new oocytes. We next discuss whether ovaries contain cells that, even if inactive under physiological conditions, nonetheless possess oogonial stem cell properties that can be revealed through cell culture. We then examine studies of whether cells harvested after long-term culture of cells obtained from ovaries can, following transplantation into ovaries of recipient females, give rise to oocytes and offspring. Finally, we note studies where somatic cells have been re-programmed to acquire a female germ-cell fate. We conclude that the weight of evidence strongly supports the traditional interpretation that germ-line stem cells do not exist post-natally in female mammals. However, the ability to generate germ cells from somatic cells in vitro establishes a method to generate new gametes from cells of post-natal mammalian females.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".